SINGAPORE - She was hardly a model employer.

The domestic helper her husband hired in July 2015 was their sixth in 14 months. She yelled at the helper and made her stand outside the flat to punish her.

But a district judge was not convinced that beautician Wong Poh Yin had kicked her maid, causing bruises.

Noting that the maid's testimony in court was "convoluted and fraught with contradictions", and that she gave "ridiculous answers" to some of the questions put to her, District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam acquitted Madam Wong of two charges of kicking her domestic helper on her legs and causing hurt.

"All round, I found her (the alleged victim) to be an unreliable witness and concluded it was unsafe to place any weight whatsoever on her testimony," added the judge in judgment grounds released last week.

The judge held there was no other evidence to support the charges.

Several key facts, such those as in relation to the medical evidence, were undisputed said the judge. However, Madam Wong and the maid were the only two witnesses who could provide direct evidence in relation to the commission of the offences, and hence the credibility of the two was a key issue, the judge added.

The domestic helper, Ms Marnellie Rebutoc Villaram, 39, began work with Madam Wong and her family at their four-room HDB flat in Clementi on July 19, 2015.

Madam Wong, 32, a mother of two, also freelanced out of her home as a beautician. Six weeks after Ms Marnellie - a college graduate and a former teacher in the Philippines - started work with her, Madam Wong sent her back to the agency as she wanted her replaced.

After Ms Marnellie arrived at the agency on Sept 5, 2015, the police received a call saying she had been injured by her employer.

Following a police probe, Madam Wong was hauled to court on two charges, but District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam found her not guilty last July. The decision grounds were released last week.

While medical evidence did show two bruises to Ms Marnellie's right thigh, the medical officer, when cross-examined by defence lawyer Chu Hua Yi, agreed that the bruises could have been sustained on account of a kick, an accident, or even self-inflicted.

The judge found Ms Marnielle was unable to explain exactly how she had been kicked and that her evidence lacked details. The medical officer's testimony also contradicted Ms Marnielle's evidence and the sequence of events on Sept 3, 2015, did not support her allegations, the judge found.

The judge also noted Ms Marnellie could not tell who made the phone call to the police on Sept 5, 2015 .

The couple of names she "volunteered" to police could not be traced.

"The caller could have been a useful and important witness who could have told the court how Marnellie's bruises came to be discovered and the circumstances which led to the call to the police when Marnellie herself was reluctant to report the matter," said the judge.

"At the end of the trial, I was satisfied that Marnellie lacked credibility as a witness."

The prosecution is appealing the case.